Dismissed

Kuldeep Singh v. Ganga and 6 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for condonation of delay in filing a First Appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to substantiate the claim of non-receipt of notice and the grounds in the affidavit were deemed insufficient to justify the significant lapse in time.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the statutorily deposited amount was ordered to be remitted to the concerned Tribunal.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Ganga and 6 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64174

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 57 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Kuldeep Singh Respondent :- Ganga And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sant Vijay Singh,Niraj Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

C.M.Application No.IA/2 of 2024

¶7

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal From Order. The office has reported the delay of 226 days in filing the appeal.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents, but no notice of the claim petition was served upon the appellant. The claim petition was filed on 01.01.2011 and it was dismissed on 26.09.2012 for want of prosecution. The said order was recalled, on an application moved vide Misc. Case No.678 of 2015, by means of order dated 15.09.2022 without any notice to the appellant and only after issuance of the recovery certificate against the appellant he came to know about the claim petition and the impugned judgement and award dated 07.07.2023 passed in Claim Petition No.14 of 2011. Thus the delay in filing appeal is not deliberate or intentional and liable to be condoned.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the application and affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing the First Appeal From Order.

¶10

The only ground shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is that the appellant has no knowledge about the above said claim petition and when the recovery certificate dated 25.04.2024 has been issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Malihabad, Lucknow in pursuance of the impugned judgment and award dated 07.07.2023 passed by the court below, then the appellant inquired about the matter and met to his Advocate Shri Neeraj Singh and upon his advice obtained the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 07.07.2023 and thereafter after obtaining the relevant papers from the court below got photo affidavit done and after arranging funds filed the appeal.

¶11

It is apparent from above that there was a counsel of the

¶12

appellant before the Tribunal as he has shown the name of his counsel as Shri Neeraj Singh and he has not stated that he met him only after coming to know about the recovery citation. The impugned judgement and award indicates that the notices were issued to the appellant and deemed sufficient as the registered notice was returned with refusal of the appellant. It further indicates that the claim petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.09.2012 and the said order has been recalled by means of order dated 15.09.2022 in Misc. Case No.678 of 2015. The plea of the appellant that no notice of the recall application or thereafter was served has not been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the application and despite repeated asking by the court, he could not show it.

¶13

In view of above, the grounds taken by learned counsel for the appellant for condonation of delay are misconceived and not tenable and the grounds taken in affidavit are not sufficient to condone the delay. Therefore the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal is dismissed . Consequently the First Appeal From Order Defective is dismissed .

¶15

The statutory amount deposited before this court shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal expeditiously and in any case within a period of three weeks from today to be adjusted in the payments to be made to the claimant-respondents..

¶16

. ...................................... .(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Banswar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAM NARESH BANSWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kuldeep Singh v. Ganga and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh v. Ganga and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mizad Vs Siddiq

Raj Kumar Pandey Vs Smt. Usha Devi and 5 Ors.

Om Prakash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ginni Lal Kaushal Vs Smt. Kusum and 4 Others

Awadhesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Smt. Naimunnisha and Another

Kuldeep Singh vs Ganga and 6 Others